2026:HHC:36061 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No.: 366 of 2026 Reserved on: 20.08.2026 Date of Decision: 25.08.2026 Ashish Sharma ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and anr. ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Petitioner in person. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing the order dated 22.01.2026, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, (CBI Court) (learned Revisional Court), vide which the order dated 31.08.2024, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.5 Shimla, (learned Trial Court) was upheld. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience). 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:36061 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the complainant filed a complaint against the accused, asserting that he was serving in Dayanand Public School, The Mall, Shimla, as a computer teacher from 05.03.2007. He raised objections to the recruitment for the post of PGT-IP. The school authorities did not take any action against the accused, but suspended the complainant on 07.12.2019. A fake document was created and attached to the memorandum dated 02.01.2020. An inquiry was conducted, and the complainant was removed from his job on 07.12.2021. The complainant applied for an experience certificate on 22.02.2022. The accused mentioned a false designation, Computer Teacher (PRT) and did not mention the classes taken by the complainant. It was mentioned in the previous certificate dated 13.08.2012 that the complainant’s designation was Computer Teacher and he was taking classes from 4th to 10th and his designation should have been TGT instead of PRT. The accused had created a fake experience certificate to harm the petitioner. Therefore, it was prayed that cognisance of the offence be taken and action be taken against the accused. 3. The learned Trial Court recorded preliminary evidence and held that the contents of the complaint and the preliminary 3 2026:HHC:36061 evidence did not satisfy the ingredients of the commission of any cognizable offence. Any error in the certificate can be corrected by approaching the school authorities. There was no criminal intent as required for the commission of the offence. Therefore, the complaint was dismissed. 4. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court, the complainant filed a revision before the learned Sessions Judge, which was decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (CBI Court), Shimla (learned Revisional Court). The learned Revisional Court held that mentioning the wrong designation of the complainant or the non-mentioning of the classes being taught by the complainant in the experience certificate did not constitute any offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code. There was no infirmity in the order passed by learned Trial Court. Therefore, the revision was dismissed. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgments and order passed by the learned Courts below, the petitioner/complainant has filed the present petition asserting that the learned Trial Court erred in not initiating the proceedings against the accused despite having the evidence on record. The learned Trial Court failed to order the 4 2026:HHC:36061 registration of the FIR and ignored the statement on oath. The learned Courts below acted as advocates for the accused and violated the principle of natural justice. The contents of the complaint disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence, and the learned Courts below erred in not taking action against the accused. The experience certificate mentioned the designation PRT instead of TGT, and it was a fake experience certificate. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed, the judgment and order passed by the learned Courts below be set aside, FIR be registered against the accused and compensation be awarded to the petitioner. 6. The petitioner in person submitted that the accused had issued a fake experience certificate in which the designation of the petitioner was mentioned as PRT instead of TGT. Issuing a fake certificate is a forgery, which is a cognizable offence. The learned Court below erred in dismissing the complaint. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the judgment and order passed by the learned Courts below be set aside. 7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 5 2026:HHC:36061 8. It is undisputed that the petitioner had filed a revision before the learned Revisional Court, which was dismissed by the learned Revisional Court. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Krishnan Vs. In Krishnaveni (1997) 4 SCC 241, the High Court can intervene under Section 482 of CrPC (corresponding to Section 528 of BNSS) when there is a grave miscarriage of justice or abuse of the process of the Court. It was observed: “10. Ordinarily, when revision has been barred by Section 397(3) of the Code, a person — accused/complainant — cannot be allowed to take recourse to the revision to the High Court under Section 397(1) or inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code since it may amount to circumvention of the provisions of Section 397(3) or Section 397(2) of the Code. It is seen that the High Court has suo motu power under Section 401 and continuous supervisory jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Code. So, when the High Court on examination of the record finds that there is a grave miscarriage of justice or abuse of the process of the courts or the required statutory procedure has not been complied with or there is failure of justice or order passed or sentence imposed by the Magistrate requires correction, it is but the duty of the High Court to have it corrected at the inception lest grave miscarriage of justice would ensue. It is, therefore, to meet the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process that the High Court is preserved with inherent power and would be justified, under such circumstances, to exercise the inherent power and, in an appropriate case, even revisional power under Section 397(1) read with Section 401 of the Code. As stated earlier, it may be exercised sparingly to avoid needless multiplicity of procedure, unnecessary delay in trial and protraction of proceedings. The object of a 6 2026:HHC:36061 criminal trial is to render public justice, to punish the criminal and to see that the trial is concluded expeditiously before the memory of the witness fades out. The recent trend is to delay the trial and threaten the witness or to win over the witness by promise or inducement. These malpractices need to be curbed, and public justice can be ensured only when the trial is conducted expeditiously. 11. In Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra [(1977) 4 SCC 551: 1978 SCC (Cri) 10], a three-judge Bench was to consider the scope of the power of the High Court under Section 482 and Section 397(2) of the Code. This Court held that the bar on the power of revision was put to facilitate expedient disposal of the cases, but in Section 482, it is provided that nothing in the Code, which would include Section 397(2) also, shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court. On a harmonious construction of the said two provisions on this behalf, it was held that though the High Court has no power of revision in an interlocutory order, still the inherent power will come into play when there is no provision for redressal of the grievance of the aggrieved party. In that case, when allegations of defamatory statements were published in the newspapers against the Law Minister, the State Government decided to prosecute the appellant for an offence under Section 500 IPC. After obtaining the sanction, on a complaint made by the public prosecutor, cognisance of the commission of the offence by the appellant was taken to trial in the Sessions Court. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The Sessions Judge rejected all the contentions and framed the charges under Section 406. The Order of the Sessions Judge was challenged in revision in the High Court. On a preliminary objection raised on maintainability, this Court held that the power of the High Court to entertain the revision was not taken away under Section 397 or the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code. 7 2026:HHC:36061 12. In V.C. Shukla v. State through CBI [1980 Supp SCC 92: 1980 SCC (Cri) 695: (1980) 2 SCR 380] (SCR at p. 393), a four-judge Bench, by majority, held that sub-section (3) of Section 397, however, does not limit at all the inherent powers of the High Court contained in Section 482. It merely curbs the revisional power given to the High Court or the Sessions Court under Section 397(1) of the Code. In the Rajan Kumar Machananda case [1990 Supp SCC 132: 1990 SCC (Cri) 537], the case related to the release of a truck from attachment, obviously on the filing of an interlocutory application. It was contended that there was a prohibition on the revision by operation of Section 397(2) of the Code. In that context, it was held that it was not reviewable under Section 482 in the exercise of inherent powers by operation of sub-section (3) of Section 397. On the facts in that case, it was held that by provisions contained in Section 397(3), the revision is not maintainable. In the Dharampal case [(1993) 1 SCC 435: 1993 SCC (Cri) 333], which related to the exercise of power to issue an order of attachment under Section 146 of the Code, it was held that the inherent power under Section 482 was prohibited. On the facts, in that case, it could be said that the learned Judges would be justified in holding that it was not revisable since it was a prohibitory interim order of attachment covered under Section 397(2) of the Code but the observations of the learned Judges that the High Court had no power under Section 482 of the Code were not correct in view of the ratio of this Court in Madhu Limaye case [(1977) 4 SCC 551: 1978 SCC (Cri) 10] as upheld in V.C. Shukla case [1980 Supp SCC 92: 1980 SCC (Cri) 695 : (1980) 2 SCR 380] and also in view of our observations stated earlier. The ratio in the Deepti case [(1995) 5 SCC 751: 1995 SCC (Cri) 1020] is also not apposite to the facts in the present case. To the contrary, in that case, an application for discharge of the accused was filed in the Court of the Magistrate for an offence under Section 498-A IPC. The learned Magistrate and the Sessions Judge dismissed the petition. In the revision at the instance of the accused, on a wrong concession made by the counsel appearing for the State that the record did not contain allegations constituting the 8 2026:HHC:36061 offence under Section 498-A, the High Court, without applying its mind, had discharged the accused. On appeal, this Court, after going through the record, noted that the concession made by the counsel was wrong. The record did contain the allegations to prove the charge under Section 498-A IPC. The High Court, since it failed to apply its mind, had committed an error of law in discharging the accused, leading to the miscarriage of justice. In that context, this Court held that the order of the Sessions Judge operated as a bar to entertain the application under Section 482 of the Code. In view of the fact that the order of the High Court had led to the miscarriage of justice, this Court had set aside the order of the High Court and confirmed that of the Magistrate. 13. The ratio of the Simrikhia case [(1990) 2 SCC 437: 1990 SCC (Cri) 327] has no application to the facts in this case. Therein, on a private complaint filed under Sections 452 and 323 IPC, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, had taken cognisance of the offence. He transferred the case for inquiry under Section 202 of the Code to the Second-Class Magistrate, who, after examining the witnesses, issued a process to the accused. The High Court, exercising the power under Section 482, dismissed the revision. But subsequently, on an application filed under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court corrected it. The question was whether the High Court was right in reviewing its order. In that factual backdrop, this Court held that the High Court could not exercise inherent power for the second time. The ratio therein, as stated above, has no application to the facts in this case. 14. In view of the above discussion, we hold that though the revision before the High Court under sub-section (1) of Section 397 is prohibited by sub-section (3) thereof, inherent power of the High Court is still available under Section 482 of the Code and as it is paramount power of continuous superintendence of the High Court under Section 483, the High Court is justified in interfering with the order leading to miscarriage of justice and in setting 9 2026:HHC:36061 aside the order of the courts below. It remitted the case to the Magistrate for a decision on the merits after consideration of the evidence. We make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the case. Since the High Court has left the matter to be considered by the Magistrate, it would be inappropriate at this stage to go into that question. We have only considered the issue of power and jurisdiction of the High Court in the context of the revisional power under Section 397(1) read with Section 397(3) and the inherent powers. We do not find any justification warranting interference in the appeal.” 9. This position was reiterated in Rajinder Prasad v. Bashir, (2001) 8 SCC 522, wherein it was held: “…though the power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code is very wide, the same must be exercised sparingly and cautiously, particularly in a case where the petitioner is shown to have already invoked the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code. Only in cases where the High Court finds that there has been a failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, or that a sentence or order was not correct, the High Court may, in its discretion, prevent the abuse of the process or miscarriage of justice by exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. It was further held, “Ordinarily, when revision has been barred by Section 397(3) of the Code, a person - accused/complainant - cannot be allowed to take recourse to the revision to the High Court under Section 397(1) or inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code since it may amount to circumvention of provisions of Section 397(3) or Section 397(2) of the Code.” 10. A similar view was taken in Kailash Verma v. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation, (2005) 2 SCC 571, and it was held: 10 2026:HHC:36061 “5. It may also be noticed that this Court in Rajathi v. C. Ganesan [(1999) 6 SCC 326: 1999 SCC (Cri) 1118] said that the power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code has to be exercised sparingly and such power shall not be utilised as a substitute for second revision. Ordinarily, when a revision has been barred under Section 397(3) of the Code, the complainant or the accused cannot be allowed to take recourse to revision before the High Court under Section 397(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, as it is prohibited under Section 397(3) thereof. However, the High Court can entertain a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code when there is a serious miscarriage of justice and abuse of the process of the court or when mandatory provisions of the law are not complied with and when the High Court feels that the inherent jurisdiction is to be exercised to correct the mistake committed by the revisional court.” 11. This position was reiterated in Shakuntala Devi v. Chamru Mahto, (2009) 3 SCC 310: (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 8: 2009 SCC OnLine SC 292, wherein it was observed: - “24. It is well settled that the object of the introduction of sub-section (3) in Section 397 was to prevent a second revision to avoid frivolous litigation, but, at the same time, the doors to the High Court to a litigant who had lost before the Sessions Judge were not completely closed, and in special cases, the bar under Section 397(3) could be lifted. In other words, the power of the High Court to entertain a petition under Section 482 was not subject to the prohibition under sub-section (3) of Section 397 of the Code and was capable of being invoked in appropriate cases. Mr Sanyal's contention that there was a complete bar under Section 397(3) of the Code, debarring the High Court from entertaining an application under Section 482 thereof, does not, therefore, commend itself to us. 11 2026:HHC:36061 25. On the factual aspect, the Magistrate came to a finding that the appellants were entitled to possession of the disputed plot. It is true that while making such a declaration under Section 145(4) of the Code, the Magistrate could have also directed that the appellants be put in possession of the same. 26. The question which is now required to be considered is whether the High Court was right in quashing the order passed by the Magistrate, which was confirmed by the Sessions Judge, on the ground that the application made by the appellants under Section 145(6) of the Code was barred firstly by limitation under Article 137 of the Limitation Act and also by virtue of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 12. Delhi High Court also took a similar view in Surender Kumar Jain v. State, ILR (2012) 3 Del 99 and held: — “5. The issue regarding the filing of a petition before the High Court after having availed the first revision petition before the Court of Sessions has come up before the Supreme Court and this Court repeatedly. While laying that section 397(3) Cr. P.C. laid the statutory bar to the second revision petition, the courts have held that the High Court did enjoy inherent power under section 82 (sic) Cr. P.C. as well to entertain petitions even in those cases. But that power was to be exercised sparingly and with great caution, particularly when the person approaching the High Court has already availed a remedy of first revision in the Sessions Court. This was not that in every case the person aggrieved by the order of the first revision court would have the right to be heard by the High Court to assail the same order which was the subject matter of the revision before the Sessions Court. It all depends not only on the facts and circumstances of each case but also on whether the impugned order brought about a situation that is an abuse of the process of the court, there was a serious miscarriage 12 2026:HHC:36061 of justice or the mandatory provisions of law were not complied with. The power could also be exercised by this Court if there was an apparent mistake committed by the revisional court. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Madhu Limave v. State of Maharashtra (1977) 4 SCC 551, State of Orissa v. Ram Chander Aggarwal, (1979) 2 SCC 305: AIR 1979 SC 87, Rai Kapoor v. State (Delhi Administration) 1980 Cri LJ 202, Krishnan v. Krishnaveni and Kailash Verma v. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation (2005) 2 SCC 571.” 13. It is apparent from the judgments that the High Court has a limited jurisdiction, and it can rectify a serious miscarriage of justice or a breach of a mandatory provision of law while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS corresponding to Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 14. The complainant filed the complaint on the assumption that the experience certificate mentioned his designation as PRT instead of TGT; hence, it is a false document. This assumption is incorrect. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751, that there is a distinction between a document containing false recitals and a false document as is understood in Section 464 of the IPC. It was observed: - 14. An analysis of Section 464 of the Penal Code shows that it divides false documents into three categories: 13 2026:HHC:36061 1. The first is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently makes or executes a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such a document was made or executed by some other person, or by the authority of some other person, by whom or by whose authority he knows it was not made or executed. 2. The second is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document in any material part, without lawful authority, after it has been made or executed by either himself or any other person. 3. The third is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, execute or alter a document knowing that such person could not, by reason of (a) unsoundness of mind; or (b) intoxication; or (c) deception practised upon him, know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration. In short, a person is said to have made a “false document” if (i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorised by someone else; or (ii) he altered or tampered with a document; or (iii) he obtained a document by practising deception, or from a person not in control of his senses. 15. The sale deeds executed by the first appellant clearly and obviously do not fall under the second and third categories of “false documents”. It, therefore, remains to be seen whether the claim of the complainant that the execution of sale deeds by the first accused, who was in no way connected with the land, amounted to committing forgery of the documents with the intention of taking possession of the complainant's land (and that Accused 2 to 5 as the purchaser, witness, scribe and stamp vendor, colluded with the first accused in execution and 14 2026:HHC:36061 registration of the said sale deeds) would bring the case under the first category. 16. There is a fundamental difference between a person executing a sale deed claiming that the property conveyed is his property, and a person executing a sale deed by impersonating the owner or falsely claiming to be authorised or empowered by the owner to execute the deed on the owner's behalf. When a person executes a document conveying a property, describing it as his, there are two possibilities. The first is that he bona fide believes that the property actually belongs to him. The second is that he may be dishonestly or fraudulently claiming it to be his, even though he knows that it is not his property. But to fall under the first category of “false documents”, it is not sufficient that a document has been made or executed dishonestly or fraudulently. There is a further requirement that it should have been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that such a document was made or executed by, or by the authority of a person, by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made or executed. 17. When a document is executed by a person claiming a property which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else, nor is he claiming that he is authorised by someone else. Therefore, execution of such a document (purporting to convey some property of which he is not the owner) is not execution of a false document as defined under Section 464 of the Code. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery. If there is no forgery, then neither Section 467 nor Section 471 of the Code is attracted. 15. Therefore, the experience certificate, assuming that it contains incorrect recitals, will not be a false document as is 15 2026:HHC:36061 understood in law and both the learned Courts below had rightly held it to be so. 16. Thus, the contents of the complaint do not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, and the learned Courts below had rightly dismissed the complaint. There is no reason to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction vested in the Court to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Courts below. Hence, the present petition fails and is dismissed. 17. This is not the first instance when the petitioner has approached the Courts by filing these kinds of petitions. Therefore, it is necessary to take effective steps to prevent the petitioner from wasting the precious time of the Courts; hence, the present petition is dismissed with the cost of ₹10,000/-, which shall be deposited in the Chief Justice Disaster Relief Fund within a period of four weeks, failing which steps will be taken to recover it as per the law. 18. Not only this, the petitioner has mentioned in para- 4(3) that accused No.1, a Judicial Officer, created a false report in legal proceedings to protect accused No.2 and 3 from arrest. He mentioned in para-4(c) that accused No.1, a Judicial Officer, 16 2026:HHC:36061 prepared a false report to protect accused No.2 and 3 in an illegal way, which is a clear-cut sign of corruption. An allegation of corruption against a judicial officer without foundation made recklessly, prima facie, amounts to Criminal Contempt of Court as it is an attempt to scandalise the judiciary2. Hence, the matter be placed before the appropriate bench having a roster for taking proper action, if deemed proper, for making reckless and scandalous allegations against a member of the judiciary. 19. The present petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending applications, if any. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 25th August, 2026 (Chander) 2 Court on its Own Motion v. Virendra Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 145